4 ms·

Well, the very sentence you quoted characterizes the process as a screen, in the sense of a filter. Later the post uses the actual word filter a couple times, s

by jmull 8y ago

Well, the very sentence you quoted characterizes the process as a screen, in the sense of a filter. Later the post uses the actual word filter a couple times, so I know that's what the post was talking about. And, of course, a post-hiring process can function as a filter. Also, the term disparate treatment is yours -- a vague term which I merely used in the same sense you did. You used it to describe what the lawsuit alleges, which is directly about outcomes (whether or not a person is hired). If you're going to draw a semantic distinction between outcomes and treatment now, that's fine, but that just means your earlier terminology was imprecise and we were still discussing outcomes the whole time.

notacoward 8y ago
> the term disparate treatment is yours Untrue. It's directly from the second paragraph of the news story you clearly didn't read. It's also not vague as you claim. It's a legal term with an established definition, and it's highly relevant. As you so politely introduced yourself to this conversation, COME ON. Again. Read before you start launching arguments that others will find laughable.
- jmull 8y ago
  >Untrue. It's directly from the second paragraph... Fair enough, you're right and I withdraw that. I realize now you were making irrelevant observation rather than a topical argument. (It doesn't matter to the point being made in the post you quoted or it's ancestor post or to the suit wether or not that poster's experience is the opposite of the disparate treatment alleged in the suit.) > As you so politely introduced yourself to this conversation, COME ON. Again. Read before you start launching arguments that others will find laughable. Oh, come on. My mistake was in construing your post as being more coherent than it actually was.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > My mistake was in construing your post as being more coherent than it actually was. It was just as coherent and topical as your own. The only thing "bad" about it is that it was in opposition, and that I didn't back down in the face of your increasingly insulting responses. Next time, make your case instead of trying to obfuscate and intimidate.
    - jmull 8y ago
      To be disagreed with or challenged should not be taken as insulting or intimidating.

by jmull 8y ago

notacoward 8y ago

> the term disparate treatment is yours Untrue. It's directly from the second paragraph of the news story you clearly didn't read. It's also not vague as you claim. It's a legal term with an established definition, and it's highly relevant. As you so politely introduced yourself to this conversation, COME ON. Again. Read before you start launching arguments that others will find laughable.

jmull 8y ago
>Untrue. It's directly from the second paragraph... Fair enough, you're right and I withdraw that. I realize now you were making irrelevant observation rather than a topical argument. (It doesn't matter to the point being made in the post you quoted or it's ancestor post or to the suit wether or not that poster's experience is the opposite of the disparate treatment alleged in the suit.) > As you so politely introduced yourself to this conversation, COME ON. Again. Read before you start launching arguments that others will find laughable. Oh, come on. My mistake was in construing your post as being more coherent than it actually was.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > My mistake was in construing your post as being more coherent than it actually was. It was just as coherent and topical as your own. The only thing "bad" about it is that it was in opposition, and that I didn't back down in the face of your increasingly insulting responses. Next time, make your case instead of trying to obfuscate and intimidate.
  - jmull 8y ago
    To be disagreed with or challenged should not be taken as insulting or intimidating.